Get Alerts For New Posts!

Sign up (free of course!) and we'll email you when there's fresh mischief to see here on the site! We'll never send spam, and never share your information with any government agencies even if we're waterboarded and forced to listen to "Barney" songs. Don't want emails? Then check the other subscription options below!

Followers

Now That He's Screwed Us For the 58th Time...

Welcome to Hope n' Change 2.0!

In the face of a collapsing economy, rampant unemployment, and global instability, Barack Hussein Obama took office in 2008 promising Hope and Change. The "Hope" thing didn't really work out, but we got plenty of "Change" as everything got worse. And now, the jug-eared jackass has a second term.

That's why at Hope n' Change Cartoons, we're creating conservative smartaleckry to provide a little laughter in these strange times. Cartoons will probably be posted Monday and Wednesday, and definitely on Friday. Additionally, cartoons and graphics will be posted randomly on our Facebook page and Friday we'll add the week's postings right here to kick around in one of the greatest comments sections on the Web.Note: please feel free to repost our cartoons on your favorite blogs!

Need Free Stock Footage or Music?

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Barack Obama has a funny way of reading the Constitution - and we don't just mean because his lips move and he touches himself inappropriately. Rather, it's his interpretations of Constitutional language which are funny - though definitely not in the "ha-ha" way.

Most recently, this has been demonstrated by his radical new claim that abortion-on-demand is a clear Constitutional right because the "pursuit of happiness" for women can apparently only occur if they can easily kill any potential children resulting from one night stands.

According to Obama, we must "continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." Unless, of course, those daughters aren't quite full-term yet...in which case they're not guaranteed Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness, but will at least get one visit to Benihana.

Interestingly and, we're sure, entirely coincidentally a questionable new study has just been released (and much publicized) stating that abortions are much safer than actually giving birth. Except, of course, for the tiny little people who are killed in 100% of procedures while their moms are pursuing happiness.

It's also important to keep in mind that this is the infant-hating president who previously said of his own daughters, "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." Were you and Michelle "punished" twice, Mr. Obama? Is that why Michelle recently declared on national television that you two are out of the conception business? (Not that we're not grateful, mind you)

Moreover, this president strongly supports partial birth abortion in which a viable child is almost fully delivered - and then has its head cut off. Not totally sickened yet? Then try this on for size: as a Senator, Barack Obama opposed the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act." Specifically, if a late term abortion went "wrong" and a healthy living baby was born, Obama believes that the state should still have the ability to kill the child.

But what is his cutoff for "post-natal abortion?" An hour? A day? A week? And once precedent has been set, why not make it a year, or 10, or 80? Or simply any age if someone gets in the way of your pursuit of happiness?

With all of that being said, it's time for a bit of Hope n' Change full disclosure: while we are 99% pro-Life, we don't believe in outlawing abortion entirely. We think it should be a States Rights issue...and we especially think that it should be a rare procedure of last resort, considered seriously and soberly, instead of a selfish, nightmarish, and all too common form of government encouraged birth control.

If Obama wants to advance his radical views on abortion, he should do it without distorting and destroying the very clear language and intent of our Constitution. Because even though he's successfully leading the charge to deprive millions of children their rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, some children will continue to be born in this country.

Only without the Constitution, it won't be a country worth living in.

Nothing goes better with Hope and Change than a Soylent Pink Smoothie!-

42 comments:

Angry (really pissed) Hoosier Dad
said...

I was sitting in mass this past weekend and listened to the priest talk about the evil of abortion being forced on Catholic hospitals. All I could think was "You dirty hypocrite...we have the most pro-abortion president in the history of the nation actively pushing this policy (it's his policy, dumbass!)and you refuse to speak out against him." Now I don't care if it's fear or some command issued by the bishop who runs the diocese, the stench of raw cowardice fills the church every time any priest talks about abortion but not the national leaders pushing it. Yes, I understand not wanting to be overly "political" and appearing to interfere in a parishioner's electoral choices, but come on now. How can anyone claim to revere life and be utterly silent on those with the power to ram the murder of innocents down our throats? I will not leave my church, but I will turn my back on these craven weaklings every time.

@AHD: I heard the same this w/e; however, there is a federal gag order against "political speech" in the churches - they'd lose their standing, and few churches - ESPECIALLY the declining Catholic church in the US - can afford to lose their charitable IRS designation. Just one more way that the progressives have been gaining control over religion, and one of the many traps set out to destroy it in this country.

So please don't vilify or think ill of your clergy, unless, of course, they are actively promoting such policies - there are those who think it is all just fine. The others are doing what they can and most, like you, are fuming over what is transpiring in our government. I've heard rather cleverly couched criticism from the pulpit of various of the Catholic churches I visit in Michigan. Unfortunately, this speech is probably above the heads of most nodding off to sleep in the pews.

And don't ofrget those bishops who have told certain of the politicians not to present themselves for communion over their stances on abortion. This, to a Catholic, is pretty high chastisement, just short of excommunication - though, personally, I think any Catholic who openly espouses such murderous policies should be excommunicated...

Apparently, some of the leftist Catholic priests who supported Obama's election are miffed that under Obamacare they now have to provide free birth control pills wherever they provide health insurance. I'm not a Catholic, but I'd have thought these religious leaders would have been a little bit smarter about who and what they were voting for. Some are thinking of paying the fine or ceasing to provide health insurance rather than follow the dictates of Obamacare. And Stilton, I did love the cartoon. Our culture has made being pro-choice so easy and cool. It's all about freedom. Yeah. Choice. Yeah. Do it early enough and it's just tissue. Yeah. Privacy between a woman and her doctor. Yeah. Safe. Yeah. The issue is discussed ad nauseum without ever using the word death. We need to be reminded of what is truely happening to a living being. Especially the gruesome nature of partial birth murder and the starvation of babies who manage to survive the conspiracy to murder them. As you already asked, "Where does the murder stop?"

@ Emmentaler Limburger:Our previous parish priest (a licensed lawyer) actively supported that vile POS representative Joe Donnelly (D) (another lawyer - no connection I'm sure) despite his support for Obama and his vote for Obamacare and the abortion provisions lurking therein. Why? Donnelly is a parishioner of the same church and a personal friend of this priest. I would love to meet a priest who isn't a politically calculating coward. I just haven't yet.

The picture you posted is a bit over the top, but what if you had posted a picture of a dead fetus? I think every human being who supports abortion should be forced to see a few pictures of aborted children. I absolutely cried the first time I saw one!

I agree that the feds need to be completely out of the abortion issue, but consider this. If left to the states, I think we would end up with about 45 states that don't allow "on demand" abortions, so women would simply flock to the five states that think killing babies is just fine (NY, CA, MA, IL & HI?). Sadly, perhaps this does need to be a federal issue. Of course, all it would take is for the Supreme Court to recognize abortion as murder.

AHD - I am not Catholic, but it also pisses me off when the Catholics support pro "choice" Democrats. The same goes for a goodly portion of protestants and Jews as well. Hats off to any Bishops and Priests who refuse to give these people communion, but these people don't fear God. I mean if you think it's OK to kill babies, how meaningful is communion?

I am a Pro-Life Catholic. I don’t understand how anyone can support abortion and yet call themselves a Christian … of any denomination. I participated in a Right-To-Life march on Monday. It was a rainy, dreary day: perfect for a silent march. The only two media outlets that even mentioned it (the local paper and local FOX affiliate) called it an anti-abortion protest, and I was labeled and anti-abortion activist. Therein lays a big part of our problem: branding. Anti is a negative descriptor, and therefore colors whatever follows in the minds eye as being negative too. The local ABC and NBC outlets didn’t even mention it.

I am also Pro-Choice. I believe we should be able to choose:- The type of light bulbs we buy. There are applications best suited for incandescent.- The size of our toilet tank.- To wear a seat belt or not. I do, but I don’t need a law protecting me from myself.Why is the left so anti-choice when it comes to these things?

Abortion is not a choice. It is murder, and if we do not fight it as being sanctified in the law of the land, we are complicit in those murders. To have sex (or not) is a choice. Once conception occurs, it is a life: fully defined in the womb. The 1973 ruling by the court was flawed as evidenced by the fact that 39 years and 54,559,615 murders later, we are still arguing about it. Obviously the number is an estimate because, since 1998, NH and CA and at least one other state (varies) do NOT even count them. Source: http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf

Abortion is not just anti-Christian, it’s anti-American.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” With out a right to life, everything that follows is as Øbama believes it is … meaningless drivel.

I agree w/ you, Stilt - abortions should be effing RARE - like only when Mother's life is in danger. I'm firmly 'Pro-Choice' - Choose a responsible partner, chose to use contraception (granted, the only 100% method is abstinence)chose to carry to term and put up for adoption.

I also feel that if the 'Lifers' put as much energy into making them unnecessary, they would have better results.

Sure as Hades our stolen taxes should NOT be paying for them, Period.

Much less Clergy, I cannot see how ANY thinking person could support Democrat policies that push welfare addiction, destruction of the family, etc etc.

It seems to me that a large part of the controversy is 'is it murder' - ie, is the fetus "a person" or not. The whole Schrodinger's Cat issue - the ovum and sperm clearly are NOT a person, the delivered baby clearly is (to most reasonable people). The question is, as what point does the status of personhood get conferred? Fertilization? Implantation? Heart beat? Brain activity? I'm not trying to start an 'argument' as to who believes what, and why, but thinking it might be somewhat useful to at least define the issue?

What, really, is the difference in killing a baby right after it's born or just before it's born?

If a person says abortion is OK before 3 months but not after, aren't they choosing an arbitrary point of the pregnancy. Why not 3.5 months? Why not 2.5 months? Why do some look upon killing an unborn baby in the earlier stages of development as a vital "choice" to have, but only in later stages start to find a moral dilemma?

Kudos to Obama at least for being consistent. In his view, if a mother doesn't want to be a mother, she can have her baby killed at any time.

I'm sorry, have I been saying baby? I meant to say fetus. All better now ...

The lack of intelligence and excessive amount of hate in these comments is disturbing. While I can understand this coming from some obviously religious people, it is sad.

If killing a baby is bad why is it ok to murder those of other religions (Indians, Muslims, Atheists etc)?

As a note to this blogs writer. If you want people to actually take you seriously, perhaps it would be wise to stand back from the point and look at it in perspective. A highly opinionated article won't convince anyone that is already convinced.

I'm sorry, but I think we get sidetracked when we start relying on our "religion". I am a baby Christian, new to the church, but definitely not new to life.

@Chuck has it pretty well nailed.

In regard to abortion ... there are two "choices", Pro-Life, and Pro-Death. The media like to refer to Pro-life by the negative term Anti-abortion ... and they love referring to Pro-Death by the euphemistic, misleading, and meaningless term, Pro-Choice.

Yes, President Obama is Pro-Death. As an Illinois Senator, he failed to support bills which would have provided infant care to children who were born alive during a botched abortion. Instead, children born alive were dumped in rooms and allowed to die, some were even dumped in trash bins at "abortion clinics" (wow, is that ever the misuse of the word clinic). His claims to support the Born Alive Federal statute are a lie. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/

Sorry, but murder is murder. The twisted logic of the left is displayed as follows: If you happen upon an eagle's egg laying on the ground, and you destroy that egg, you will go to prison because the eagle is protected (you can't even take a feather from a dead on if you stumble on it in the woods). The reasoning being that an eagle's egg is a protected species waiting to be born. On the other hand, if a woman is pregnant, the fetus is "not human", therefore not due the protections of life, liberty and property.

For me, it has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with laws prohibiting us from killing each other.

Abortion has never been a "hill to die on" issue for me, and I rarely engage in "abortion" debates because they usually go absolutely nowhere. But I do have several observations about the debate.

Although I believe that terminating a viable fetus after conception is, in fact “killing” it, I personally do not think it should be illegal. I don’t have a problem with people terminating fetuses that are “defective”. But since “defective” can be such a subjective subject, I’m not sure how it could even be regulated to the satisfaction of even a near-majority of people. Many could argue that a fetus genetically predisposed to being homosexual might be “defective” just as much as any fetus found within the womb of a Kardashian would certainly be. It’s an issue for which I don’t think there will ever be a consensus.

Since I think government-run socialized medicine is an inevitability, the state will be involved. To most it may seem inconceivable now, but after a generation or two more of state desensitization, socialized health care will require that “defective” fetuses, mainly those with congenital issues that will represent a lifetime of expensive health care only resulting in a non-productive citizen unable to contribute to society, will have to be terminated. If the state is going to have to pay for a lifetime of care with no expectation of return, economically it cannot afford to allow such a fetus to come to term. After all, the communists came to this conclusion early on. What makes anyone think that we could afford not doing the same?

If conservatives were but 1% as evil as the left enjoys portraying them as being, (mainly as racists & Nazis, etc) you'd think that the GOP would be all about abortion. After all, who gets aborted at a greater rate than all other social categories? Minorities and the poor. It's just another example of where the thoughtless racists really are in American politics.

In fact, it's almost a shame that conservatives aren't pro-abortion. Imagine an America where genetic tendencies towards poverty and liberalism were removed from the population? Within a generation, this would be a very different country. In fact, I think it's one reason why more people self-identify as "conservative" in America than "liberal". The liberals are killing off their own next generation. I can't ever seem to get a liberal to answer to this dichotomy.

Roe vs. Wade was bad law. The Supreme Court dodged the real issue, which is "At exactly what point do the rights and protections of a citizen vest?". Do you become a "citizen" at conception, at birth, or at some arbitrary point in between? Instead, they opted for the non-existent "privacy" argument, which is no where in the Constitution, and they eliminated the former "trimester" line and instead settled on an arbitrary date based upon a fuzzy definition of "viability", which, surprisingly enough usually falls within a trimester. The net effect of this logically weak decision is that the debate has only intensified, and we now have generations of people who believe that there actually is a "right to privacy" enumerated in the Constitution. Because of the logical weakness of Roe, it's inevitable that it will be overturned sooner or later. Because of this, abortion remains a divisive issue for both parties.

The moral and intellectual decay that represents liberal (non) thought is all over the pro-abortion debate. The arguments that pro-abortionists and organizations like Planned Parenthood make are horrendous, and in any other context would be comparable to official policy of the European fascist era.

Amongst the "official" arguments I've repeatedly witnessed:

o A fetus is little different than a cancer or parasite upon the body; a mass of cells that contribute nothing to the host, and yet consumes her resources. Cutting out a fetus is little different than cutting out a tumor.

How can we question the reckless and psychopathic disregard for human life all over our society today when leftist intellectuals so freely discount human life as nothing more than "tumors" to be eradicated? Our kids are brainwashed with this logic in public schools from a very young age. Why should be surprised that the result are psychopathic adults?

o A fetus is little different than a vagrant who takes up residence in your home and eats your food. It's your right to chase it out.

I've always marveled at the 180-degree difference liberals take with this argument versus one they might make regarding, say, homeless people. If I were to kill a homeless person who showed up in my home, there's no question the same person making this argument would demand that I'd be arrested for murder, and likely tried for a "hate crime" as well. Especially considering that I'd actually invited the homeless person in!

o Abortion is actually a healthy experience, that actually improves your life. More women should experience it. It's empowering.

The friends and acquaintances I've known who have had abortions and still morn the child terminated decades later would highly disagree.

It's been years since I've looked, but in the past arguments like these could easily be found on Planned Parenthood's website. It's chilling to hear people make such cases. But it does reinforce in my mind which ideology truly tolerates and fosters "evil".

I’ve also always found it amusing that liberals are horrified by the idea that people should be exposed to photos of abortion procedures. “Not fair” they say, it’s an “appeal to emotion”. Well, what aspect of the liberal agenda isn’t built upon argumentum ad misericordiam? For example, they have no problem with gross pictures of diseased lungs on cigarette packages to discourage people from smoking. And yet even showing mothers life sonograms of healthy a healthy fetus’ is off-limits?

Obama's "Pursuit of Happiness" argument isn't exactly new. (similar arguments could be found on Planned Parenthood's website) But the overt crassness by a person as high up the chain as the POTUS is new. It’s just another revealing window into the modern liberal intellectual’s mind; that a child isn’t a responsibility or blessing, but is, in fact, a “punishment”.

@Angry Hoosier Dad & Emmentaler- As preamble, I need to say that I'm not a member of the Catholic (or any other church). But I'm a strong proponent of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

I can understand that a church shouldn't actually be a thinly-disguised political organization with tax exempt status, but that's clearly not the status of the Catholic church. For the government to create policies which are totally in opposition to Catholic doctrine, then use tax status to try to force the Catholics to keep their mouths shut, is reprehensible. But of course, it's not only Catholics who care about these issues. Anyone who has ever looked at a sonogram of a developing child knows that it's a lie to call it a "mass of tissue."

@Earl- Glad you liked the cartoon. Yes, it's ugly, appalling, and in your face - because this issue SHOULD be. An abortion is not a tonsillectomy. Pictures of aborted fetuses are shocking and disturbing because they're clearly not clumps of undifferentiated tissue - rather, they're Hieronymous Bosch-like nightmare collections of arms, legs, fingers, toes, and heads. Late term abortions are the worst - and in this age where many preemies live and thrive, there can be no other word but "baby" for the being who is killed (not simply removed) by a doctor.

If people want to defend abortion, let them do so honestly instead of distorting the Constitution, or telling us to disbelieve the evidence of our own eyes.

@Colby- You say (correctly) that the picture I posted is "a bit over the top." That's pretty much the definition of satire - exaggerating real issues to the point where they shock, in order to get people to ask themselves "if this shocks me a lot...then maybe the underlying reality should shock me more than it does."

If abortion laws are determined only by the states, it could indeed be an inconsistent mess. Or should I say, a glorious inconsistent mess, in which the states are allowed to function in the manner the founding fathers intended.

@Chuck- The labeling game is one of those things that drive me crazy. Hell will freeze before you hear the media describe liberals as "pro-abortion."

And as you point out, Progressives are very much against choice... except when they're empowered to make the choices for us. We shouldn't be allowed to choose our lightbulbs, our toilets, our cars, our schools, our food, our health insurers, our employees, and on and on. And as you point out, they believe that abortion is a choice, but sexual activity and conception is not a choice.

@Pete(Detroit)- You're certainly not going to get any argument from me about the death penalty, as long as all the legal ducks are in a row.

Regarding the definition of "when Life begins," it's an important issue. And as Mrs. Jarlsberg reminded me this morning, candidate Obama sidestepped that important question by saying it was "above his paygrade." Glib, but not helpful.

It's a complicated question, but at the very least we can start by eliminating the answers that are clearly ridiculous. Consider this: if Obama was presented with a healthy, newborn baby and asked "is it alive? Is it a being?" his answer would be "I don't know." He'd first have to find out if the baby had just survived an abortion attempt, in which case he'd be on record as saying that the wriggling, breathing child in front of him was a non-being; a collection of tissue to be discarded. If we can all agree that this is preposterous, then we've narrowed the definition of Life a bit.

As I've said, I'm not religious and am not going to get into questions of the soul. And I'll admit that I don't think a collection of 8 recently divided cells is the same as a fetus, which is why the so-called "morning after" pill is less offensive to me than procedures which occur later in a pregnancy.

I guess my point is that we need to cut the bullshit (sorry) about this question being above anyone's paygrade, because enabling and encouraging abortion is tacitly making that decision without admitting it. 55 million times.

@Paladin- When you boil it down, Obama's policies aren't about the fetus or baby at all. They're about the "happiness" of being freed from the consequences of your own actions. Which is essentially what every Progressive policy is about.

There's just one very important detail they're overlooking. The Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness...it guarantees your right to pursue happiness; to work for it and achieve it if you can. In this sense, "pursuit" and "freedom" are interchangeable concepts - because the government can't guarantee happiness without pursuit unless they take away someone else's freedoms and assets.

@Suzy- Yes, the word "daughters" sticks in my craw when used by Obama in this context. I just read an article (probably Wall Street Journal) talking about the fact that abortion is now commonly used in many countries to select the sex of children - with girls almost always being the ones who end up in the dumpster. That's a pretty funny sort of "women's rights" if you ask me.

@Sam Wronski- I encourage disparate views on this site, but I can honestly say I don't know what you're talking about (and would like you to explain).

Don't just side "lack of intelligence" and "excessive hate" without telling us what you're talking about (and here's a hint: you're not likely to win any points by labeling those ugly qualities as being expected from "religious people." How about leaving the stereotypes aside?)

What kind of leap are you making when you say "if killing a baby is bad, why is it ok to murder those of other religions?" Guess what - it's not okay! And no one here said that it was! (Oops, I just aborted your straw man!)

And then you tell me to "stand back from the point and look at it in perspective." I honestly thought I had - so why don't you tell me what perspective I'm missing? Seriously, I'd like to hear and have a calm, rational discussion about this if you really think you have a supportable alternate view.

One final note: writing "opinionated" articles is what I do. My opinion is what Hope n' Change Cartoons is all about. Although I link to news stories, I've never represented this website as a news source (though if you follow the links to Wall Street Journal, Heritage, and Newsbusters in the sidebar, you could do a lot worse).

By the way, if you do write back, please include your opinion of post-natal abortion. Do you agree with Obama or don't you?

@Readers- Oh, I knew the pot was going to be boiling here today (grin).

My responses may not quite be sequential today; I spent so much time writing replies to the earliest comments that elcedar and John the Econ had made lengthy posts by the time I posted mine. It's hard for me to keep up with all of you!

@Sam Wronski,Wow! We lack intelligence? Do you say that because we believe differently from you? I categorically disagree with everything Barack Obama stands for, but will freely admit he is a pretty intelligent dude.

And we're filled with hate because we think abortion is murder of human life? Listen up, dude. I can't speak for anybody but me, but I don't hate anybody. I don't hate people who get abortions; I don't hate people who GIVE abortions. I don't even hate you for telling me I'm full of hate. Get real... What I DO hate is... well.. abortions. When my daughter in law got pregnant, her mother wanted her to get an abortion, but she refused. Every day I look at my wonderful, 11 year old grandson and thank God his mother stood strong.

Oh, and what the heck do Indians, atheists and Muslims have to do with this? You completely lost me there. What, are there rogue bands of conservatives out there slaughtering atheists by the millions? Like maybe 54 million?

As a note to you blogging here. If you want people to actually take you seriously, perhaps it would be wise to stand back from the point and look at it in perspective. There are opinions that apparently greatly differ from yours, and the folks that hold those opinions are by and large neither stupid nor hateful. We just get wound up sometimes, and this blog is a great place to vent frustration. If you want to participate in a blog of nothing but like-minded people, please feel free to do so. That's what I do.

@elcedar- Very good post, and I particularly like your observation that this has "nothing to do with religion" (and to clarify, I mean only that people don't need to be religious to have strong feelings about the value of life).

Probably the biggest turning point in my own thoughts about all of this happened during my wife's pregnancy. She was required to take medication which could potentially cause birth defects, and so amniocentesis (sampling amniotic fluid with a needle) was recommended. And the doctor told us the procedure was quite safe, with only about a 1-in-33 chance of something going wrong and, perhaps, causing a spontaneous abortion. But at that point, my unborn daughter had a heartbeat. She was moving around and kicking. And suddenly I felt like I was being asked to play russian roulette with a gun that had 33 chambers and one bullet. And my wife and I chose not to do the procedure (and happily, our daughter was - and is - perfect). But there was nothing hypothetical about my daughter's existence at that point, and no amount of legalistic rhetoric or partisan speechifying can change that.

@John the Econ- Spectacular. Point by point, we're in complete agreement. Although you express yourself with dignity and eloquence, and I'm doing cartoons using projectile vomiting. I doff my hat, sir.

Pete(Detroit)- I wonder how many Libs even know what "eugenics" is, and what Margaret Sanger's goal was (hint: racial purity and removing the "human waste" from the gene pool). But how to hide her organization's true goals from the black population? In her own words: "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

By the way, Sanger didn't just want black parents to abort... she wanted them sterilized to "prevent multiplication of this bad stock."

@Colby- A great and measured response to Mr. Wronski. One of the things that I love about this blog is that the people who take time to think and comment (in that order) are not hateful or stupid, and serious discussions and differing opinions are exchanged here in a friendly way.

If someone of the liberal persuasion wants to have an honest conversation about a different viewpoint, I genuinely welcome it - not as a contest to see who's argument "wins," but rather as an opportunity for two differing sides to try to learn about each other.

But of course, that's less likely to happen when someone first accuses others of hate, ignorance, or hateful ignorant religiosity instead of sharing any facts or perspective.

First and Foremost, I am a Christian. I was born and raised Lutheran, but I generally consider myself non-denominational. That said; I believe GOD gave me a scientific mind for a reason. I step back from an issue and pick it apart as logically and free of emotion as possible.

Emotion, after all, leads to making "truths that fit theories" instead of discovering the truth through theories. This is commonly referred to as social justice, politically correct, or any number of "positive" media labels.

I won't dress down Sam Wronski too terribly, but I shall admit that at one point I was filled with hate. That's the difference I see with wrongly labeled "liberals" - they are really statists. They love hate. They thrive on it, and they sell it.

On the other hand, I recognized the hate I had - mostly towards myself and people who picked on me - and saw it for the evil it was. In fact, most Conservatives recognize that hate is evil. We don't want to hate. We want freedom, and we want to live our own lives the way we see fit.

I vowed to never hate another person ever again while I was in high school. I vowed to follow GOD's teaching to love the sinner and hate the sin. Though I'm rather chronic depressive, I've been much happier since. I pray for many more "Saul"s to become "Paul"s.

That doesn't mean I won't fight for freedom in the US. I'll speak my mind and do what little I can to help, but I sure as anything am not backing down.

When it comes to abortion, I'm certainly Pro-Life. There are many wonderful people who were born from situation where doctors said the mother's life was at risk - Tim Tebow anyone? - or counselors said it was better for the rape victim. Sadly, I can't think of somebody specific for the latter at the moment. However, one rape victim I saw interviewed said she felt empowered against the rapist by carrying the baby to term and loving him/her (sorry, brain file not loading right now).

In fact, the Radiance Foundation has proven how very anti-hate Pro-Lifers are. Here's a video on how they hope to turn the tide.

Some of those are women who regretted their abortion! Can you say they are filled with hate? I love them. I love them dearly. They made a mistake, and they will have to suffer with it for the rest of their lives!

That's not any sort of "pursuit of happiness" I see in their eyes. Though, they have turned their suffering into a message.

Do I want to see atheists die? No, they are brothers and sisters. Do I want to see Muslims die? That's like asking if I want my friends to die. Do I want people of differing opinions, cultures, nationalities, or religions to die? That's like asking if I want family to die!

If you have a different opinion, post that opinion. You can back it up with facts, but do not slander and liable without some very hard evidence. You see, that's something we've been fighting for a very long time from the media and demoncrats. It only speaks ill of the attacker.

So why are the only people who are Pro Choice alive? (i.e. they weren't aborted).Why is it the minute you find yourself pregnant with a longed for child with someone you love, its a BABY - a real person! So happy! When you find yourself pregnant accidentally by someone you don't know or care about, it's a FETUS/TISSUE?The comment that this has merely become a means of birth control is right on. At the cost of millions of lives.Selfish selfish. How can our children have come to mean so little to us?

I feel anytime ya gotta start 'splitting hairs' on an issue to try and get your point across, you are probably on the 'wrong' side of the scale.

We 'baby boomers' far outnumber the present generations behind us; not only because following WWWII our folks brought millions of us into the world, but shortly following that, abortion was made legal by Roe vs Wade(brought about by the efforts of ONE DERANGED WOMAN). As a result there are around 40 million fewer people in this country who would have been working and paying their 'fair share' of taxes!

The most interesting aspect of the abortion debate is the intellectual gymnastics it forces Progressives to go through in order to make their whole argument work. In a nutshell, they have to rationalize against what even deep-down they know to be intrinsically true; that a fetus is, in fact, a human life. The ideology that self-righteously portends justify all public policy in the name of being sensitive to the weakest aspects “humanity” forces itself to accept that the weakest and most vulnerable of all humans, an unborn fetus, is, in fact, not even human.

This is the price they must pay for embracing Roe vs. Wade, which refused to legally define what life is for them.

Once you allow such non-logic into your intellectual portfolio, all manner of insanity becomes possible. And it has.

The arguments used to justify the pro-abortion movement nauseate me to the core. I, on the other hand, refuse to delude myself. I have no problem with believing that abortion should be legal, and even encouraged in cases of rape or health. But what I won’t do is try to fool myself into believing that partaking in an abortion is not the taking of a human life. This is what I believe makes me far more “human” than all of those “sensitive” liberals who cry crocodile tears for the victims of society.

@Dragon Against Evil- Excellent points about the differences between disagreeing with someone and hating them. As a rule, I try to do the same thing, though I've allowed myself the personal indulgence of hating just a couple of people to keep in practice (surprise: Obama isn't one of them).

In your post, you mention people who weren't aborted who accomplished great things, and women who had abortions who later regretted it. Which isn't so much a direct argument against abortion (to me, anyway) as it is an argument that abortion is always a huge, important, and life-altering decisions and should damn well be treated as such. Those who minimize the importance and gravity of this choice are minimizing the value of life itself. Enabling or encouraging any woman to have an abortion and treating it like a tooth extraction is an insult to women's intelligence.

@Anon- "Selfishness" is the magic word, alright. It's what Obama is preaching and what the Progressives live and breathe. Whatever happened to "ask not what your country can do for you?"

@John the Econ- Again, a great point. Personally, I believe that there are instances where abortion can be appropriate...and similarly, I could support euthanasia in certain circumstances. But in both cases, I know it's about taking a life and I can't balm my feelings by pretending it's anything else.

But these decisions must not be made lightly or for the wrong reasons - as they are, tragically and seemingly without end, in today's sick, sad culture.

I'm glad you see the weight of a life, and I'm not at all put off at my statements being taken that way. I was not using my statements as arguments against abortion but the weight and sanctity of life.

If I were to use arguments against abortion, I would have to begin with where and when I consider life to begin. While I say conception, I also understand other points of view if and only if those points of view weigh the weight and sanctity of life.

Several posters have already commented on what is truly evil about abortion. It blurs the line between the sanctity of life and unjust death. If an arbitrary time frame defines when an abortion can be performed, the absolute answer of when life begins loses its moral foundation.

It's a slippery slope. It is emotionally disturbing to see politics arbitrarily define life with abortion timelines, but our true purpose must be to put forth logical arguments.

Sometimes we have to emotionally charge people - like showing images of an aborted baby (I refuse to be politically correct with "fetus"). The human psyche responds and resonates to emotions, something statists (aka: the left, demoncrats, et al) have a certain mastery of. We sometimes have to fight fire with fire. However, the truth and logic takes deeper root.

@Dragon Against Evil- Please note that I was agreeing with you - and let me expand on that by saying what a marvelous and important concept "sanctity of life" is.

Determining a secular, legal definition of when life begins (or when legal "personhood" begins) is indeed the slipperiest of slopes - and yet we have to try to arrive at something in order to have logical and enforceable laws (not just regarding abortion, but other pre-natal issues).

But it's not as complicated as the Left would like it to be. If a child would be viable outside the womb, it's a person. If it has been born, full term, despite a failed abortion attempt, it's a person.

No answer is going to be perfect - but that sure doesn't mean we can't start by eliminating the ridiculous.

Don't worry; I got that. As I said, I believe GOD gave me a scientific mind, and a debative attitude goes along with that. I was just saying that, rather poorly it seems, I was glad you didn't take my statements incorrectly. As in, you didn't see them as argumentative points against abortion.

As you said, they were only points of weight ;)

You're also absolutely right to say it's not very complicated. While we may have different views, we both recognize that the law wins. A healthy debate is never bad, but the statist left doesn't want a debate. They want to create tyrannical dictum.

Don't know about the rest of you, but observing (and participating in) this discussion at the level of politeness and respect we are is stunning. This is a verbotten topic purely as it is simply normally not possible to have a sane rational discussion. Bravo and well done, all!

Stilt - agreed, "viability" as a minimum definition. It does kind of fox my senses that pre-natal surgeries are performed on fetuses (fetuii?) that are younger than some that are aborted for no "good" reason...

1. Since 1973, there have been an estimated 50 million abortions in the United States alone. (These estimates do not address potential multiple births, but only the number of pregnant women involved.) Since polls indicate that people tend to vote the same "party line" as their parents, and that the overwhelming majority of women who have abortions are "liberals," that means some 25 million Democrat voters didn't get a chance to get to voting age ... and counting.

2. Churches & ministers who are afraid to lose their IRS status have already lost something far more critical: their integrity.

3. Politicians who claim that "personally" they are opposed to abortion, but that they can't come against "the law of the land" have forgotten that they are allegedly the ones who write the laws. They are liars, pure and simple. But I'm repeating myself.

I suspect that I am also reading much of what has already been said ... but I couldn't stand to read any more than just a few entries.

Re: pryorguy's comment about the "40 million" who would be taxpayers now, I think it's worth noting that the vast majority of those now-dead former babies would have grown up to be Demo_rats. That's actually kind of scary.

As a side note, I have often wondered how it can be that the pro-abortion types can swear up and down that a woman has an absolute right to an abortion whenever she wants, but society has no right to execute a known, convicted murderer. It's somehow okay to kill a baby who has never done anything wrong, but someone who has murdered human beings should be permitted to live? I don't get it.

Your first point brings to mind that not only would they likely be Dems, but also mired in poverty (born to young, un{der}educated unmarried poor women) and likely living at state expense in facilities w/ high fences and community showers. This was actually pointed out to me as a justification of abortion by a (former) associate of mine. Creepy and sick, but true. We, as a society need better ways of dealing w/ a) unwanted pregnancies b) poor, un(der)educated women.

@Dragon Against Evil- As you say, the law needs to be finite, even if the underlying questions are much more difficult to answer. And so all of us, from our varying perspectives, need to try to arrive at what law is most acceptable. For me, what we currently have is a long way from acceptable.

@Pete(Detroit)- I'm delighted but not surprised by the civility here, even on such a potentially inflammatory subject. The key is that everyone respects everyone else around here, even if opinions differ. Which allows dialogue instead of flame wars. Frankly, I wouldn't invest the time it takes on this blog if it was just a meeting place for bomb throwers. But happily, I'm enlightened and buoyed by the comments here every day.

Regarding "viability," I wouldn't set that as the magic point at which Life and Rights kick in - I'd actually argue that those things come into play much sooner.

@Jazz- I'd like to think that even in a culture that is now numb to the word "trillions" thrown around, "50 million lives lost" still carries a little weight (but I'm not sure it does). And whether a clergy member or a politician, anyone who doesn't stand up for what they believe in doesn't actually believe in a damn thing.

@JustaJeepGuy- According to Obama, a fetus is a murderer who takes the life (or at least the "happy" life) away from a woman. But unlike adult murderers, they're too young for government-funded rehabilitation programs, so they have to be sliced, diced, sucked, and bucketed.

@Pete(Detroit)- Bringing children into lives of desperate poverty and hopelessness (or already damaged from alcohol or drug abuse by the mother) is another huge issue...and another in which we'll find Liberal policies largely to blame. To save the children, we need to save families - which in turn means saving communities by re-establishing the importance of values and personal responsibility.

Can you imagine something that would put evangelical Christians and homosexual activists together fighting on the same side of an issue? I can. It’s my prediction that as genetic testing for fetus’ progresses, tests to suggest if a child will be predisposed to being homosexual will become more widely available and accepted. There will be, no doubt, many anguished parents who will consider abortion a less offensive option than rearing a child that might possibly turn out to be gay. Since the homosexual community has long argued that homosexuality isn’t a “choice” but is something that someone is born into, the arguments of “genocide” will emerge, and many of this traditionally very liberal group will fracture and align themselves with the anti-abortion agenda. Many will argue that abortions instigated on the basis of such test should be made illegal, breaching the notion that abortion is entirely an issue of a woman’s “choice”.

I think many on the left already see this coming, and are attempting to get such tests discredited or outlawed altogether to cut this off before it happens. They can’t afford to lose any more of their coalition than they already have.

Free Hope n' Change Ebook!

Click book cover for download instructions

Legal Disclaimer, Terms of Use, And Other Lawyerly Stuff

DISCLAIMERThe thoughts and opinions expressed in the cartoons and commentary section represent the personal opinions of the author, which are subject to change over time, and which are reasonably eccentric even on good days. These opinions are intended to be entertaining, stimulating, and occasionally challenging but are in no way intended to do harm. HopeNChange Cartoons should not be considered a reliable news source, but instead as an advocacy entertainment outlet much like MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and the New York Times.

Opinions expressed in the Comments section are the sole responsibility of the people who post those comments, and HopeNChange Cartoons accepts no responsibility for the content of those comments. Additionally, by submitting comments you agree to subject your opinions to peer review and remarks, which means you may get conversationally kicked around like a soccer ball, or accused of being something small and moist found in the back of a dark cave. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this website, its staff, and its subsidiaries. By submitting e-mails and comments to this site you agree to the above policy. The owners of this website also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been pre-authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, social, art, media, and cultural issues. The 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material that may exist on this site is provided for under U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with U.S. Code Title 17, Section 107, material on this site is distributed without profit to persons interested in such information for research and educational purposes. If you want to use any copyrighted material that may exist on this site for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you feel that any of the images used on this site infringe on YOUR rights, please contact us via the e-mail posted on this page and we will happily comply with your request and remove them. All original photos and montages posted on this site are owned by me and marked to distinguish. "Hope n' Change" Cartoons may be freely reposted for non-profit use without additional permission, but must contain the full header, author's name, and copyright information. Material from this site may not be collected, printed, or sold in any form without specific permission from the author - who may be, for all you know, a bloodsucking parasitic lawyer just aching to file a lawsuit, take your life savings, and leave nothing more than your dried and dessicated carcass like a dead mayfly on a windowsill.

Individuals, entities, or groups legally affiliated with any governmental organization, investigative body, or the Internal Revenue Service agree that accessing this site constitutes a review of the political beliefs of the author, and subsequent actions, investigations, or audits of the author constitute a deliberate and premeditated attack on the author's first amendment rights, the damages for which will make the Pigford settlement look like a joke.HopeNChange Cartoons is based in, and subject to the laws of, the United States. We are neither cognizant of nor responsible for the laws in any other countries, districts, emirates, theocracies, principalities, directorates, or dictatorships. Additionally, the cartoons and commentary are published in English, and we accept no responsibility for words or opinions which may appear differently or have offensive meanings in other languages or alleged cultures.